Okay so first, we don't marry our funds or fund managers. I thought I was the last one to get divorced but perhaps it would seem I'm not. It took my YEARS to convince myself NO ONE is that good.
Frankly I focus more on whether to be invested in equities or not. After that I go with fund / or keep fund that's doing well. If that stops being ARTMX so be it.
I briefly owned Parnassus Midcap. However after their immoral love affair with Smells Largo, I stayed with ARTMX.
I've gradually sold all of my Artisan holdings. I've moved them to balanced funds. I will trade Artisan funds just I will trade other funds. Yes I trade funds, not stocks because I'm better at doing that. Sue me (but it will get you nowhere). I keep my toe in Artisan because they are mostly closed - the only reason. In strong markets Artisan will do well.
Bottom line, if I was fretting so much about ARTMX as you seem to be, I would be out already. Not worth it frankly. Just hope you have a alternate place to go.

Translation: Insanely-priced OEFs are not a good investment. Not exactly rocket-science there, Forbes reporter.
Want to talk about bad investment funds and lessons learned? PAUIX holders who stuck with the fund despite Arnott's ongoing 20% short position in the S&P during the past 10 years, simply because his models said to. When the markets change, in an actively managed fund like that, you need to at least be open to the possibility of changing your strategy. (Of course PAUIX folks could switch into his other tactical fund that didn't have the short position, but IIRC the performance wasn't that much better.)

I confess I own one of these funds (peopx) for the reasons suggested(I owe taxes) and in most years it does not do worse than several of my other funds)

Although POAGX is similar to ARTMX as both are mid-cap growth oriented, POAGX has been closed to new investors for several years. The larger cap version, PRIMECAP Odyssey Aggressive Growth Fund, POGRX is still open.

I’ve owned it for decades but have reduced pct over the Years.
I’m inclined to sell all shares. As previously stated it runs hot and cold AND there are better options I believe.

Sharing this for what value it may hold.
(September, 2018)
Dear Investor:
We are writing to inform you that after 25 successful years with the firm, David Lee has shared his intention to retire at the end of this year. Mr. Lee established our real estate franchise with the inception of the Real Estate Fund (TRREX) in 1997. He is a respected investor and mentor, and we are grateful for his many years of dedicated service to the firm and our clients.
Nina Jones will succeed Mr. Lee as portfolio manager of the Real Estate Fund on January 1, 2019. Ms. Jones has 10 years of investment experience, all of which have been with T. Rowe Price covering the real estate sector. She joined the firm in 2008 from Columbia Business School, after serving as a summer intern in 2007. Ms. Jones amassed a very strong track record as an analyst in the real estate sector before assuming her current responsibilities as portfolio manager of the Global Real Estate Fund in April 2015.
We are confident that Ms. Jones’ deep industry knowledge, strong analytical and portfolio management skills, and support from our global research platform will position her to carry on the success of the Real Estate Fund. Ms. Jones will continue to manage the Global Real Estate Fund and serve as the leader of our real estate sector strategy team.

Still own it for many years (think it is closed to new investors). Also keep POAGX as a back-up.

FYI: If Hollywood decides to produce a movie about a government official who finds himself mired in the middle of a once-in-a-lifetime crisis, Hank Paulson could easily be cast in the lead role. He’s tall, bespectacled, ruggedly handsome, and still has pretty much the same athletic physique he had when he started 50 years ago on the varsity football team at Dartmouth. (His nickname was “Hank the Hammer.”)
He is also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs and of course was the Treasury secretary, under President George W. Bush, during the 2008 financial crisis.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/hank-paulson-looks-backat-the-turmoil-of-2008-1536759000?mod=hp_highlight_2

Sold ARTKX 2 days ago after 9 years in portfolio because of gradual decrease in performance over the past 10 years. When things get less frothy ,funds will go into FMIJX,PGVFX and VMNFX which I also hold. Artisan today is very different from 10 years ago and it was time to move on.

You will perma-bears like Marc Faber and other saying the same thing going back at least ten years ... so listen w/a grain of salt. They'll be proven right EVENTUALLY ... but being early and right is still being wrong for economists and market pundits. But anyone who offers a market-timing timeframe for their prognostications is, generally, imho, to be ignored. Nobody has a crystal ball.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4188407-bill-fleckenstein-market-crash-within-6-months-podcast

So where are you guys who are selling ARTKX/ARTGX moving your funds to? I've owned ARTKX for 12 years or so, it's been a fabulous fund, but all these changes are disturbing.

Hi Joe. I built a very similar spreadsheet, probably about 15-18 years ago, and have upgraded it over the years with a bunch of what-if statements, like what if I pulled from the nest egg and bought an annuity in such and such year, what if I take my pension as a lump sum or in monthly life-long payments to compare scenarios for when to retire, what if inflation is 2%, 4% or more in different decades, ect, ect... 3 different compare tables showing the value of your nest egg in 3 comparable charts. You guys are right on this. Doing it yourself and understand each calculation is a huge benefit, if not greater reassurance in it's ability to predict.
Not bragging, but most people cannot do the same with Excel. That is why I think the Monte Carlo simulation is a great tool for most people, not as an exact answer but a ball park. That's all I was trying to say.
Take away MJG's annoyingness, (which we agree on, hmm, spell check says annoyingness is not a word) in my opinion people could and should be using something, and if you aren't a spreadsheet builder yourself I'm not sure there is anything better than Monte Carlo to get a ball park for probability to sustain.
Thanks for the feedback msf and old_joe.

@MikeM - Hi there Mike- I think that msf has pretty well covered the general response to your questions. Because Monte Carlo simulation was not widely available during our working years, I designed (took me a while, I'll tell you) a "predictive" spreadsheet which I integrated into the general financial spreadsheet which I had used for some years (and still use) to keep track of our various investments.
The "predictive" section took account of all resources which would be available to my wife and I after retirement: pensions, SS, Medicare, and income or value increase in investments of equity vehicles, bond vehicles, and real estate. Likewise we had excellent data which had been accumulated over a number of years with respect to anticipated expenses, broadly classified as "basic" (unavoidable), discretionary, and emergency.
Each of those variables was referenced to large tables which were set up to independently run compounded values over 35 years. Independent inputs for variables included inflation rate, rate of return on equities, bonds and cash (CDs and savings) accounts, and a "financial disaster" input which introduced a general meltdown variable selectable for any given year in the 35 year stretch.
By varying each of those inputs in any desired combination it was possible to see the cascading effect of various disaster scenarios occurring at different selected times. For example, I generally ran cash and bond income at 2% below the inflation rate, which was also a selected variable, and equity income at 2% above. Very conservative. Being a pessimist by nature, I generally ran setups which would cover every bad thing happening that I could imagine.
As it happened, I wasn't too far off in the predictive timing for disaster. Destruction of financial resources will be most influential the earlier that they happen in retirement, as they can set back the entire cumulative compounding effects quite seriously. Indeed, Murphy struck, in 2007/2008, just after retirement.
Nevertheless, the tables worked out pretty well. By pulling down our discretionary expenses (another independent variable input) we survived the chaos in good shape, and were able to carry on with no huge impact to our retirement mode.
Edit/add: I should also mention that we were deliberately in good shape with respect to loans and finance charges: 30 year mortgage @8% had been paid off ten years early, never any credit card or other interest expenses. (Once the mail was late with a credit card payment and it cost something like $4.21. My wife still mentions that occasionally.)
MGJ dismissed this whole effort rather casually with a reference to the "limitations" of a spreadsheet for these purposes, and endless exaltations and paeans as to the superiority and invincibility of Monte Carlo. He's welcome to his opinion: just take it with a large grain of whatever. He seems to be one of those folks who believe that whatever they do is the right and only way, that anything else is highly suspect or at best barely acceptable, and thoroughly enjoy telling you so. I'm sure that you know the type.
Regards
OJ

Open end funds can in theory be shorted. I'm not going to do a search now, but in the past there were a few that were actually set up for shorting (I mean shorting shares of the fund, not that the fund shorted securities).
Whether there are currently any OEFs that can be shorted, I don't know. It's not something I've checked on in several years.

Looks like they're trying to find a way to make us buy both funds. I exchanged from ARTKX to ARTGX years ago and I'm glad I did. I'm really appreciating FMIs setup more and more. Maybe this will work but I hate tinkering with something that already is working.

Chart compares for 10yr yield, $US, IEF, EEM and EMB for the past 2 years.
I thought I had retained a write about the market flip at the end of January........can't find.
However, I continue to be inclined that the late January global equity markets actions have more to do with "other", and not so much a stronger dollar and higher gov't. bonds issues here. Other being continuing twitches about trade and tariffs; as well as a little here and a little there......Turkey, Argentina, etc.
A risk off for some areas continues for the markets since Jan. 26 or so. The downside took place then and remains in place for numerous sectors, having not attained and/or recovered to a previous higher price level.
Pillow time.................
Catch

"writing what it seems you want to be true"
Been telling MJG that for more years than I can count. Good luck getting him to listen.

You're missing a number of points and writing what it seems you want to be true: that the 4% figure "is based on multiple studies that included using Monte Carlo analyses". It wasn't.
If what you meant to say is that subsequent Monte Carlo simulations validated this figure, then there's a different problem with the narrative. Because that would also validate the use of historical data - something you say has an intrinsic shortcoming.
Of course the odds are virtually nil that the next thirty years will match a previous thirty year period. Just as the odds are virtually nil that the next thirty years will match a performance pulled out of a hat (aka a Monte Carlo iteration). This is a red herring.
In the typical Monte Carlo simulation, patterns are abstracted away. You seem to regard this as a virtue, writing disapprovingly that historical returns are used "sometimes in the precise order in which these returns were registered." (Orderings weren't preserved merely "sometimes" but always when Bengen came up with his 4% figure. See his original paper.)
Again I suggest reading the AAII piece. You'll find a concrete example of how ignoring some patterns can affect results. Bengen notes there that if one rebalances much less frequently than yearly, " you can actually add about a quarter of a percentage point to your withdrawal rate" He attributes this to persistence of performance. That's a kind of pattern that simplistic Monte Carlo simulations abstract away.
"Monte Carlo simulations continue to grow in popularity." When all else fails, cite popularity for validation. I'm sure VHS's popularity meant that it was the superior technology, that the more popular Windows is better than Mac, etc.
There really was some interesting stuff that you didn't discuss. Like how "there is an inverse relationship between the long-term valuation of the stock market and how much retirees can withdraw without running out of money."
How does that historical data fit into your Monte Carlo simulations? How do you map CAPE into means and standard deviations for large cap stocks, small cap stocks, and bonds? Those are the inputs for the simulators you're linking to.

I think Monte Carlo engines are fine tools. Just so long as they're not simplistic, matched to the right task, and employed by knowledgeable users. Used as you suggest, they have lots of issues.

There are no constraints to Monte Carlo simulation, only constraints users create in a model (or constraints that users are forced to deal with when using someone else’s model). Non-normal asset-class returns and autocorrelations can be incorporated into Monte Carlo simulations, albeit with proper care.

David Blanchett and Wade Pfau,The Power and Limitations of Monte Carlo Simulations, 2014.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2014/08/26/the-power-and-limitations-of-monte-carlo-simulations

Defined benefits are part of your compensation in addition to the base salary, insurance coverage, vacation, sick leave, and retirement funding.
Defined pension plan, although rapidly disappearing, is your retirement pension once you are "vested", typically 3-5 years of employment. Defined contribution plan, or 401(K) in private sector, or 403(b) in education sector. 401(k) plan is funded by the employees on pretax dollars and therefore reduces the taxable income (say your base salary). If you contribute to the maximum dollar amount in 2018, this amounts to $18,000. If you are over the age of 50, you can contribute additional $6,000. Your employers can contribute up to 5-6% of your base salary to your 401(k). If you are in 25% tax bracket, your tax saving is $4,500 (0.25 X $18,000),
As bee pointed out, the HSA and FSA are also available. Since the medical insurance enrollment is upon us now, it is important to talk with your HR as soon as possible.

https://m.nasdaq.com/article/the-best-bonds-for-rising-rates-cm1020114
FINSUM, September 10, 2018, 10:05:23 AM EDT
(New York)
This is a tough time to be buying bonds. Prices have become very rich over the last several years and on top of sky high valuations and low yields the risk of rising rates causing big losses is high as the Fed sticks to its hawkish path. With that in mind, floating rate bonds and ETFs are a good strategy to combat the situation,